• squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the number of electors was distributed in a way that didn’t give disproportional representation to states with very small populations, that would be great. Also, the notion that the US is truly a federation of independent states hasn’t been accurate for at least 200 years.

    • Umbra@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a bit disproportional for a few states but then again, you can say the votes of people in Wyoming are worth more relatively speaking but it’s still just 3 electors in the end. No one will pay much attention to them either way, unlike the more populous states which can swing elections.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        unlike the more populous states which can swing elections.

        You say that like it’s a bad thing for people to be in charge rather than arbitrary lines drawn on maps.

        • Umbra@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m saying they don’t matter with their 3 votes, I don’t think the people there feel very important in deciding the presidential election.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is not just Wyoming, but many states. States like Wyoming and North Dakota get 2-3 times the votes per population as states like California, Florida or Illinois. For states such as New Mexico and Arkansas, the ratio is more like 1.5 times the more populous states. It just doesn’t make sense according to how the system is supposed to work.